10F/8424G00 is 90 dB/2,83 volt and seems to have slightly more HF extension.
10F/8414G10 is 85 dB/2,83 volt
When using EQ on the bottom end the sims won't matter much as both have enough x-max. Compared to a TC9 they should outperform that in theory. The TC9 compared to TG9 gave the TG9 an advantage but in reality I was able to get the same low end and even match the resonance frequency in the enclosure of a well known array build with the TG9 predecessor.
10F/8414G10 is 85 dB/2,83 volt
When using EQ on the bottom end the sims won't matter much as both have enough x-max. Compared to a TC9 they should outperform that in theory. The TC9 compared to TG9 gave the TG9 an advantage but in reality I was able to get the same low end and even match the resonance frequency in the enclosure of a well known array build with the TG9 predecessor.
Xrt971's Subjective Blind Part 2
I have spent the better part of the morning/afternoon, taking X's Subjective Blind Comparison - Part II
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...ind-comparison-3in-5in-drivers-round-2-a.html
I went in with no preconceived notions or expectations. No point on cheating on a test when there is this much time and money involved. Actually, I was hoping I would have liked one of the cheaper drivers.
I downloaded the clips, got the headphones out and listened. I took notes and listened many times. Things like harsh treble and shrillness in the upper mid-range were pretty easy for me to detect, and I was able to eliminate those right away. What I found important with this test was to listen to the drivers in many different orders as the driver before it could "trick" my mind in focusing on the differences between those two drivers instead of the overall sound. And it was definitely important to listen to all three clips X provided, representing three very different genres, all of which I do like, even if I do not listen to metal so much anymore. It is still fun to jam along with AC/DC at the end of Ironman II.
I will share my impressions using the driver names, as to not give the test away, so if You want to listen objectively, You can. I am sharing what driver I thought should have won the test, You can do the test yourself and see if your driver won. Like I say, I wanted to like the Peerless TG9FD10 or P830986 or even the Alpair 7.3, as these would have been more cost effective arrays to build. But there are times when success does not go on sale, because it can not be made cheaply and You must work your heart out like You really want it. As it turned out, the driver I liked was the 10F/8424...
I did like the "openness" of the Alpair 7.3, it had a very direct and lively sound. I would have picked this one, had it not been for the 10F. In comparison, the Alpair did not have the nuances to give the depth and ambiance of the lower mid-range.
The Peerless P830986 was full, but it had a significant amount of shrillness in the upper mid-range, and that is something I do not want to deal with after living with that in my current arrays.
The TG9FD10 had a similar bandwidth of the 10F, but it does not have the resolution, to the point where it sounds "distant" and not engaging. The tonality almost sounded "muddy" to me. It is the kind of driver that could entice someone to buy a Fostex FF104wk...
The Fostex FF104wk did have a way of bringing out the upper mid-range and putting it up in the front. It is a very forward sounding speaker, giving one the impression of a live space. But it is too much, I could not listen to this speaker too long. The Alpair 7.3 would be a more neutral choice for a lively speaker.
The 10F was amazing, it had the liveliness of the Alpair 7.3 except that it carried it through its whole listening range. It does not "force" the ambiance out like the Fostex and Alpair. It is effortless. And the ambiance and nuance does not get lost in the mix like it does with the TG9. The tone is right on. To get Brain Johnson's vocal right on the AC/DC track is hard to do, and the 10F nailed it!
So needless to say, the 10F/8424G00 is being seriously considered, despite the $$$$ and truncation they need.
I would also be interested to know how similar the fostex FF104wk and the FF85wk is. The FF85wk seems to have a smoother response, so maybe it could give the 10F a good run for its money.
I have more to share, but I am out of time. Got three 13 hour nights coming up. Time for me to sleep on this and go to bed.
Allen
I have spent the better part of the morning/afternoon, taking X's Subjective Blind Comparison - Part II
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...ind-comparison-3in-5in-drivers-round-2-a.html
I went in with no preconceived notions or expectations. No point on cheating on a test when there is this much time and money involved. Actually, I was hoping I would have liked one of the cheaper drivers.
I downloaded the clips, got the headphones out and listened. I took notes and listened many times. Things like harsh treble and shrillness in the upper mid-range were pretty easy for me to detect, and I was able to eliminate those right away. What I found important with this test was to listen to the drivers in many different orders as the driver before it could "trick" my mind in focusing on the differences between those two drivers instead of the overall sound. And it was definitely important to listen to all three clips X provided, representing three very different genres, all of which I do like, even if I do not listen to metal so much anymore. It is still fun to jam along with AC/DC at the end of Ironman II. I will share my impressions using the driver names, as to not give the test away, so if You want to listen objectively, You can. I am sharing what driver I thought should have won the test, You can do the test yourself and see if your driver won. Like I say, I wanted to like the Peerless TG9FD10 or P830986 or even the Alpair 7.3, as these would have been more cost effective arrays to build. But there are times when success does not go on sale, because it can not be made cheaply and You must work your heart out like You really want it. As it turned out, the driver I liked was the 10F/8424...
I did like the "openness" of the Alpair 7.3, it had a very direct and lively sound. I would have picked this one, had it not been for the 10F. In comparison, the Alpair did not have the nuances to give the depth and ambiance of the lower mid-range.
The Peerless P830986 was full, but it had a significant amount of shrillness in the upper mid-range, and that is something I do not want to deal with after living with that in my current arrays.
The TG9FD10 had a similar bandwidth of the 10F, but it does not have the resolution, to the point where it sounds "distant" and not engaging. The tonality almost sounded "muddy" to me. It is the kind of driver that could entice someone to buy a Fostex FF104wk...
The Fostex FF104wk did have a way of bringing out the upper mid-range and putting it up in the front. It is a very forward sounding speaker, giving one the impression of a live space. But it is too much, I could not listen to this speaker too long. The Alpair 7.3 would be a more neutral choice for a lively speaker.
The 10F was amazing, it had the liveliness of the Alpair 7.3 except that it carried it through its whole listening range. It does not "force" the ambiance out like the Fostex and Alpair. It is effortless. And the ambiance and nuance does not get lost in the mix like it does with the TG9. The tone is right on. To get Brain Johnson's vocal right on the AC/DC track is hard to do, and the 10F nailed it!
So needless to say, the 10F/8424G00 is being seriously considered, despite the $$$$ and truncation they need.
I would also be interested to know how similar the fostex FF104wk and the FF85wk is. The FF85wk seems to have a smoother response, so maybe it could give the 10F a good run for its money.
I have more to share, but I am out of time. Got three 13 hour nights coming up. Time for me to sleep on this and go to bed.
Allen
Allen,
Do keep in mind that the sound of the drivers is convolved with the mic, mic-pre, the source, the amp, the enclosure, the miniDSP (you are not listening to the drivers FR), xrk's room, and as an MP3 the subtle detail will be buried. Then it is further convolved with your playback system.
You have to be very careful what you take out of this comparison. You cannot really conclude much about the actual performance of the drivers.
dave
Do keep in mind that the sound of the drivers is convolved with the mic, mic-pre, the source, the amp, the enclosure, the miniDSP (you are not listening to the drivers FR), xrk's room, and as an MP3 the subtle detail will be buried. Then it is further convolved with your playback system.
You have to be very careful what you take out of this comparison. You cannot really conclude much about the actual performance of the drivers.
dave
I have spent the better part of the morning/afternoon, taking X's Subjective Blind Comparison - Part II
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...ind-comparison-3in-5in-drivers-round-2-a.html
I went in with no preconceived notions or expectations. No point on cheating on a test when there is this much time and money involved. Actually, I was hoping I would have liked one of the cheaper drivers.
I will share my impressions using the driver names, as to not give the test away, so if You want to listen objectively, You can. I am sharing what driver I thought should have won the test, You can do the test yourself and see if your driver won. Like I say, I wanted to like the Peerless TG9FD10 or P830986 or even the Alpair 7.3, as these would have been more cost effective arrays to build. But there are times when success does not go on sale, because it can not be made cheaply and You must work your heart out like You really want it. As it turned out, the driver I liked was the 10F/8424...
I did like the "openness" of the Alpair 7.3, it had a very direct and lively sound. I would have picked this one, had it not been for the 10F. In comparison, the Alpair did not have the nuances to give the depth and ambiance of the lower mid-range.
The Peerless P830986 was full, but it had a significant amount of shrillness in the upper mid-range, and that is something I do not want to deal with after living with that in my current arrays.
The TG9FD10 had a similar bandwidth of the 10F, but it does not have the resolution, to the point where it sounds "distant" and not engaging. The tonality almost sounded "muddy" to me. It is the kind of driver that could entice someone to buy a Fostex FF104wk...
The Fostex FF104wk did have a way of bringing out the upper mid-range and putting it up in the front. It is a very forward sounding speaker, giving one the impression of a live space. But it is too much, I could not listen to this speaker too long. The Alpair 7.3 would be a more neutral choice for a lively speaker.
The 10F was amazing, it had the liveliness of the Alpair 7.3 except that it carried it through its whole listening range. It does not "force" the ambiance out like the Fostex and Alpair. It is effortless. And the ambiance and nuance does not get lost in the mix like it does with the TG9. The tone is right on. To get Brain Johnson's vocal right on the AC/DC track is hard to do, and the 10F nailed it!
So needless to say, the 10F/8424G00 is being seriously considered, despite the $$$$ and truncation they need.
I would also be interested to know how similar the fostex FF104wk and the FF85wk is. The FF85wk seems to have a smoother response, so maybe it could give the 10F a good run for its money.
I have more to share, but I am out of time. Got three 13 hour nights coming up. Time for me to sleep on this and go to bed.
Allen
AA:
Thanks for taking the time to listen carefully and for writing such a thoughtful analysis and findings.
If someone will get me a FF85WK I will put it through the same test and sound clips to add to the database. I suspect the FF85WK will be a bit better than the FF105WK but if you look at its frequency response:
You will see that there is about a 6 to 7 dB peak at 10kHz and a slight dip at 2.2kHz. These two things will make it sound less smooth than the 10F that you like.
The FF105WK has a large circa 8dB peak at 8.2kHz which is very audible:
Here is my measurement:
By contrast to the 10F/8424, the response is butter smooth:
I don't think the FF85WK is going to be better or even close to the 10F in performance - nor should it be given the difference in price and materials/build quality.
As a possible alternative, look at the SB Acoustics SB65WBAC25. It is quite smooth and has some great upper end extension. As a bonus it is square framed and small, with Nd motor and very advanced suspension - perfect for a line array. And only $33, less than an FF85WK. I have this and will test soon.
A Visaton B80, which costs more than the 10F, may be strong competition, but is all but unobtainable in the US.
Last edited:
Guess i'll have to put our 10fs in a box that tries to extend its low end -- might be able to get a bit better than 200 Hz out of it and directly compare it to the FF85wKen (still cheaper than 10F). My bet is on the latter. And with its lack of bass response its application to a FR array the 10F might well be excluded soley on that basis.
dave
Do note that the guys that know what they are doing suggest XRK's measures are only good to about 600 Hz.
dave
Not here, please....
Can we keep this thread about Allen's journey?
I've not done the math yet but I think there won't be any problem for the 10F to run in an array and have decent low end extension.
Don't expect to come up with a super enclosure to boost it's low end. It's just not build for that, it wasn't a design goal.
What it was designed for it does very well. And even though it wasn't meant to be a full range speaker it can hold it's own there too.
It is an extended midrange, but a very good one. Run it in numbers in an array and it can do even more due to being this well behaved.
Allen? I did try
Can we keep this thread about Allen's journey?
I've not done the math yet but I think there won't be any problem for the 10F to run in an array and have decent low end extension.
Don't expect to come up with a super enclosure to boost it's low end. It's just not build for that, it wasn't a design goal.
What it was designed for it does very well. And even though it wasn't meant to be a full range speaker it can hold it's own there too.
It is an extended midrange, but a very good one. Run it in numbers in an array and it can do even more due to being this well behaved.
Allen? I did try
Last edited:
If the 10F has the same xmax as the TC9FD, a lower fs, a more powerful motor, why would that make it incapable of bass in a line array compared to the submillineter xmax of the FF85WK?
And your point relative to thread topic is? Are you just going to play the same old broken record again?
The signal train convolves blah blah blah... The point is that the driver is the ONLY thing that changes. So if one hears a difference the only thing it can come from is the change in the driver.
I see no problem, below is 10F compared to TC9
Both 25 drivers in a 55 liter enclosure. No linkwitz transform yet and WinISD does not add the gain you get from a line of these drivers. Been there, done that...
Look in my thread for more info on that but I see no problem, even when using the save x-max value as mentioned on the Scan Speak official site.
Max SPL, placed near wall could almost hit 100 dB at 20 Hz, without going over the x-max. X-mech is stated as 7 mm(!). Looks like a pretty save bet to me.
These would go insanely loud and be very dynamic. It doesn't need more than 70 watt though, the TC9 would need (and can theoretically handle) 230 watt to
do the same.
Allen talked about using these to 80 Hz (when he adds in his subs) They do 90 dB there already without a wall nearby.
Both 25 drivers in a 55 liter enclosure. No linkwitz transform yet and WinISD does not add the gain you get from a line of these drivers. Been there, done that...
Look in my thread for more info on that but I see no problem, even when using the save x-max value as mentioned on the Scan Speak official site.
Max SPL, placed near wall could almost hit 100 dB at 20 Hz, without going over the x-max. X-mech is stated as 7 mm(!). Looks like a pretty save bet to me.
These would go insanely loud and be very dynamic. It doesn't need more than 70 watt though, the TC9 would need (and can theoretically handle) 230 watt to
do the same.
Allen talked about using these to 80 Hz (when he adds in his subs) They do 90 dB there already without a wall nearby.
Last edited:
xMax has nothing to do with bass extension, and as a generalization, more motor means less bass extension.
dave
4ms gate is 250Hz lower end validity according to REW - don't know where you got 600Hz from.
Let's not pollute AA's thread anymore.
600 Hz is my recolecction from when the guys were helping you get your measures into something actually useful in this thread http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...parison-3in-4in-class-full-range-drivers.html
I may be mistaken... or you may have changed your room.
dave
If you were utilizing a driver to achieve bass extension on its own, high Qts or weak motor does mean more bass extension. But in the case of a line array that is EQ'd and DRC'd to the max, strong motor and deep stroke are what you want in a transducer to effect bass - in control theory it is called having an actuator with a large amount of authority. You want that cone to respond rapidly to the signal from the amp controlled by the EQ. A weak motor (low authority actuator) cannot overcome the impedance presented by the air mass when asked to move it at low frequencies and with deep extension. Notice that the Qts on active servo subwoofers like B&C's special servo sub is like 0.15.
Given two drivers with equal cone area, the one with more xmax will move more air. Air movement at low frequencies is what is needed for bass. How much air does an FF85WK move over 0.75mm stroke vs a larger Sd 10F/8424 with 2.5mm of stroke?
In general less EQ is a good thing. Butterworth sealed FF85 hits about 150 F3, 10F 210.
With 25 (and lots of EQ) power limitations are probably more of a limit than xMax.
One must also note that without any standards for measuring xMax numbers from different manufactures are hard, if not impossible, to compare. xMec on the FF85 is certainly considerably larger than the rated xMax.
dave
With 25 (and lots of EQ) power limitations are probably more of a limit than xMax.
One must also note that without any standards for measuring xMax numbers from different manufactures are hard, if not impossible, to compare. xMec on the FF85 is certainly considerably larger than the rated xMax.
dave
It is also worth considering that Allen has suggested he will use an array of woofers to do the bass… depending on where he XOs he may get away with no bass EQ.
In this situation tha other driver characteristics dominate. In the end he should purchase sample drivers and evaluate them in his room with his equipment.
dave
In this situation tha other driver characteristics dominate. In the end he should purchase sample drivers and evaluate them in his room with his equipment.
dave
Confirmed. But worth noting that at the LFs the resolution is quite poor, which may have promted the 600 Hz number suggested by the measure guys.
dave
Me O Me O My...
I will start with this one...
I am going to be dropping some serious $$$$ into this project over the next couple of years, I will not be concluding anything without long extensive listening tests, building different cabinet shapes, trying damping materials, diffusion blocks, etc. I am going all out on this system, with-in "reason" (as in being sure I do not sacrifice my daughter's education or default on my house!)
None the less...
I really enjoyed participating in Xrk's "Virtual" living room driver comparison, despite the "bottle necking" technology. In fact I was amazed at the differences I could perceive given the limitations. From what I could hear, I would say that the 10F is a good match for X's system and room. I liked the Alpair also, and maybe some additional treaking on the cross-over frequency and order may make that out-perform the 10F.
But this comparison was only good for discerning tonality and a certain level of detail, I certainly could not perceive how any of these drivers would perform in terms of rendering a 3D soundstage. And I have no clue how they perform off axis in different listening postions. If by chance, the Alpair rendered a better soundstage then the 10F, the Alpair then would have been my number one choice. And at that point, I will be exploring why it does so. Would it be because of the unique upper frequency response or because of the shape of the cone, or the motor structure? Is it off axis response? 3D soundstage is an illusive thing, some drivers have it, some do not. Likewise, some drivers "disappear". Why? Are these aspects we can measure? Does a better CSD help with these aspects?
One thing I do know, measurements are limited. This test proved it. The 10F and TG9 had a very similar bandwidth. The TG9 sounded "dull" and "un-engaging", yet the 10F had more of something that clarified it and give the sound more resolution and texture. The measured bandwidth and even the impulse response was very close on these units, why did one have so much more to give? For me, it was a make it or break it deal. I liked the 10F best on X's rig, followed by the Alpair, then the Fostex (mainly due to its "unique" way of extracting recorded "ambience"), and the TG9 being merely an honorable mention. I liked the open-ness and range of P830986, but on X's rig, there was some nasty "shrillness" in the upper mid-range that sounds like an unfix-able driver characteristic to me. Is it a poor synergy that caused this? Interesting thing that a lot of people liked that "effect" with that driver.
I think instead of arguing, we all should put our heads together and figure out what is going on.
I am not finished with what I need to say on this matter, but my "break" is over, and I have 3 hours of caregiving services to complete before calling it a day. I might be crashing out after that...
Allen
I will start with this one...I am going to be dropping some serious $$$$ into this project over the next couple of years, I will not be concluding anything without long extensive listening tests, building different cabinet shapes, trying damping materials, diffusion blocks, etc. I am going all out on this system, with-in "reason" (as in being sure I do not sacrifice my daughter's education or default on my house!)
None the less...
I really enjoyed participating in Xrk's "Virtual" living room driver comparison, despite the "bottle necking" technology. In fact I was amazed at the differences I could perceive given the limitations. From what I could hear, I would say that the 10F is a good match for X's system and room. I liked the Alpair also, and maybe some additional treaking on the cross-over frequency and order may make that out-perform the 10F.
But this comparison was only good for discerning tonality and a certain level of detail, I certainly could not perceive how any of these drivers would perform in terms of rendering a 3D soundstage. And I have no clue how they perform off axis in different listening postions. If by chance, the Alpair rendered a better soundstage then the 10F, the Alpair then would have been my number one choice. And at that point, I will be exploring why it does so. Would it be because of the unique upper frequency response or because of the shape of the cone, or the motor structure? Is it off axis response? 3D soundstage is an illusive thing, some drivers have it, some do not. Likewise, some drivers "disappear". Why? Are these aspects we can measure? Does a better CSD help with these aspects?
One thing I do know, measurements are limited. This test proved it. The 10F and TG9 had a very similar bandwidth. The TG9 sounded "dull" and "un-engaging", yet the 10F had more of something that clarified it and give the sound more resolution and texture. The measured bandwidth and even the impulse response was very close on these units, why did one have so much more to give? For me, it was a make it or break it deal. I liked the 10F best on X's rig, followed by the Alpair, then the Fostex (mainly due to its "unique" way of extracting recorded "ambience"), and the TG9 being merely an honorable mention. I liked the open-ness and range of P830986, but on X's rig, there was some nasty "shrillness" in the upper mid-range that sounds like an unfix-able driver characteristic to me. Is it a poor synergy that caused this? Interesting thing that a lot of people liked that "effect" with that driver.
I think instead of arguing, we all should put our heads together and figure out what is going on.I am not finished with what I need to say on this matter, but my "break" is over, and I have 3 hours of caregiving services to complete before calling it a day. I might be crashing out after that...
Allen
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.